Funk is talking about the analytical methods used to isolate the authentic words of hisotorical Jesus. This does not speak either to the possibility of divine revelation or the spiritual validity of scripture. Funk (and the rest of the JS) draw many conclusions about the evolution and authorship of the Gospels but the make no statement at all about a divine role in that evolution or about the gospels’ spiritual validity. You are making a priori assumptions about what constitutes validity and about how a divine revelation must be read and interpreted.
Sorry. I asked for Scripture scholars. You have provided two popularizer apologists. You have also not provided evidence that either of them disputes the Q theory, and I have not found any evidence, on-line, that they do. (I found one link to a book review by Most that was vaguely critical of a book by Burton Mack. However, as was already pointed out, Burton Mack is also not a Scipture scholar, but a popularizer who tends to be viewed as a bit of a crank by the scholarly community. Therefore, criticism of Mack’s odd views of Q have no bearing on Most’s views of the actual Q–even if Most was an actual scholar in the field.)
Your dispute over the inspired nature of the Gospels is with Diogenes. I will note that I see nothing in your extensive list of quotations by Funk that support the notion that he (or any associated scholars) are scornful or derisive of people of faith.
(My own perspective of the Jesus Seminar is that they have done some good work, but that on two counts I find the project to be silly: that they actually believe they can parse the “truth” or historicity of the Gospels on a verse by verse (or clause by clause) basis and that they can arrive at the correctness of their views by a vote of the participants. I do not dismiss the JS as “bad,” but I look on it as only one of many studies and give it less weight than some other efforts.
Wandering Agnostic, Fr. William G. Most is a Catholic priest who writes a “Q & A” column for various print and electronic Catholic publications.
Scott Hahn is a Catholic apologist who has written several books for Catholic lay persons addressing different issues of spirituality. He has gone on record as saying that he is not (and does not want to be identified as) a scripture scholar, prefering to approach Scripture from a perspective of enthusiasm rather than research.
It always saddens me to see people putting limits on what God can do. 
Q as described by Mack, and possibly by Funk, might argue against Divine Inspiration, but Q as accepted by Brown, Feine, Behm, Conzelman, Dibelius, Kümmel, Barth, and dozens of other scholars who believe in Divine Inspiration makes no such argument. The issue is merely one of understanding where the information was gathered, not one of the Divine guidance in organizing and presenting the material. If Hahn and Most reject Q (as opposed to rejecting Mack’s Q), then I would argue that nothing that either of them says is worth hearing–especially among a Catholic audience.
You are applying post-18th century views of history and biography to first century literature.
I would quibble with the statement that the JS attempts to parse “truth” in any absolute sense. The JS never asserts anything as absolute historical fact bit merely grades words and deeds on a scale of relative certainty. For instance, the JS rates the crucifixion as ranking very high as something we can be certain of historically and the Virgin Birth as very low. Their position is not that Virgin Births are impossible, therefore it didn’t happen, but that a Virgin Birth would be such an extraordinary (and prima facia impossible) event that we can’t have any certainty that it happened.
The goal is simply to find out what we can know for sure about historical Jesus. The stuff that doesn’t get the red ball (and very little does) is not being assertively denied so much as it being judged as not meeting a standard for historical certainty.